Xp Vs Vista For Games

Just curious if anyone here dual boots xp and vista. I'm thinking of installing vista for better performance, but I want to know the pros and cons..

Will Xp give me a higher 3dmark06 score (usmcvicious gets like 6000 points)
I ask this because some guys get the same 3dmark06 score as my 3dmark05 score...Ive looked around for comparisons and I couldnt find people getting 5000 3dmarks without doing something funny to the program or system..stock 3600..vs there overclocked 5900 score is funny..thats way too much of an improvement.. SO im assuming its because these dudes are using xp or windows 95 in usmc's case lol..had to throw that in cuz i can.

but seriously, when i overclock i get 500 points extra for every 100 mhz overC...and if another dude gets 5990, he is up 3500-6000= up 2500 points roughly..lol thats alot..to me that means his card is better...or ....hes simply overclocking to 500mhz+475mhz=975mhz...lmfao with nitrogen cooling i would still want photos of that size of a overclock....OR he is defeating the purpose of the 3dmark06 test by changing the program settings/driver settings(custom drivers)/faster O/S...

so what does that babble mean...

IM sick of liars...SO MANY PEOPLE LIE..why..

im going to edit my drivers set rez to 640x480 turn off just about all effects in a custom driver, and overclock my gpu...then run 3dmark....and POST THE RESULTS ON MY SIG BUT SAY DEFAULT SETTINGS...lmfao

youtube,incrysis,google(LMAO),YAHOO SEARCH....tells me half the people bragging about performance dont have advice to improve gaming, just driver tweaks that are very similar to my crysis tweaks....kinda looks good but smells like shkt..

so i talk alot

anyways im practicing typing

ooooo so answer my questions ..if u havent forgot what they were by this point...

reminder xp vs vista for gaming....will i get better 3dmark how much..will i get more fps also

 

don't worry about 3dmark score.

if you are concerned about performance, just get windows xp.

 

Under 4GB memory: 32 bit windows XP
4GB+: 64 bit windows Vista

 

so whats the diff....anyone actually done it...

 

i mention 3dmark because im a loser..sorry..but''' being a dork is so neat, yea dorksta beat for tha street''.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDqSy5XuGpo

 

Most benchmarks I've seen show that Vista with SP1 performs just as good if not slightly better than XP SP3 for games. It seems the gap has really been narrowed since SP1.

Me personally, on games like TF2, Bioshock & COD4 I get 1-2 frames higher using Vista SP1. YMMV.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2304031,00.asp

 

lol i never checked if i had service pack 1 yet...where do i look.i installed in on my old laptop(2months ago)

 

XP runs leaner then vista so hardware can work smoother when gaming. Personally a clean install of XP pro vs vista business 32bit with 3gb of ram really isnt different at all. Maybe Ill get a few FPS more, but so minimal that I dont even bother with XP on either of my rigs.

 

ok i got it.. but i dont understand my results...

my windows index says my card is .1 better than the 9600m gt i seen at future shop


proccessor=4.9
memory=4.6
graphics=5.9
gaming graphics=5.5
primary hard disk=5.1

i get 4000 3dmarks at 1280x800

if i had 6000 3d marks shouldnt gaming graphics be at 5.6-5.9

and how can a 8600mgt ocd get a higher rating than:

NVIDIA GeForce Go 7950 GTX
NVIDIA GeForce 9700M GT
NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
NVIDIA GeForce 9650m gs
NVIDIA GeForce 9500m gs

lol the list could go on and on..these cards are simply better gddr3 vs ddr2 doesnt mean your 3dmarkscore should be 1000 less than a 8800m gts..and 2500 points above stock...im starting to think the dude with the sig of 5900 3dmarks 06 is a complete liar and or idiot

 

the more i research the more i find out ...

first off..if your using a hd2600 or 8600m gt your 3dmark will not be above 5000.

your rez must be set to 1024x768
your op system must be xp basic
your overclocked gpu will have to be at max speed(very unstable and dangerous)
and your driver must be modified for 3dmark(laptopvideo2go drivers disable certain graphical settings )

im thinking of seriously moding the hd2600 drivers the same way the lv2go drivers are modded and i bet my life under the same settings it will get the same or better results..
hd 2600 has 120 unified vs 32...and the core speed is 500 vs 475...aswell as Transistors 289 Million vs Transistors 390 Million ...lol and more yet...65nm vs 80nm..

in short more unified pipelines high amount of transistors(poly power), and should be cooler at the same clocks..

 

im bored and looking for something to do, I want to improve hd2600 performance but with better tech..it still gets lower scores in 3dmark..unless the select few are lying about it..all the posts threads googled sites that have 3dmarks above 4500 are not proved..they are edited..all the people that have stock drivers and overclock get 4300-4400..yet people saying they are usin a diff diver claim 5000 and up...i call bs..drivers think about it ...if your 8600m gt gets 2000 more points with a older modded driver, dont u think nvidia woulda just used the drivers they made instead of releasing the 8700m gt 9600mgt 9500m gs...lol on and on..they wouldnt make such poorly crafted drivers as to rob u of 50 percent of your gpu performance..it makes no sence at all and if u disagree than u must me a pretty dumb monkey or not human...it bugs me alot about that dude saying he gets 5900 3dmark06 points with his 8600mgt...it makes no sence why he would get 2000 more points than everyone else just because hes overclocking....because the others with 4500 are severly overclocked aswell...he claims its his cooling pad..bs...his cooling pad is what...a 8800m gts..

and also guys are using the 8600m gts drivers for the 8600mgt and are getting wicked performance boosts...but even with overclocking they dont get past 4600...

 

haha...i changed my sig...

 

Windows XP if you are looking to squeeze the maximum performance out of your games. I only use XP on my gaming rig and I tried Vista SP1 and it still wasn't up to the task.

Now if you want all the bells and whistles for a game written natively for DX10/DX10.1 then that's a different story. I have racing sims written for DX9.0c where I can put 59 cars on the track with all graphics settings maxed out and still achieve FPS in the 60-65 range. Vista still is not up to speed for me, pun intended.

 

thanks rodknee..

im looking at changing my device id(gpu) to a hd2600xt not sure how to do it...do u have anyideas

I want to use the xt drivers..is this even possible

i know guys are using 8600m gts drivers on their 8600m gt and getting sig performance increases...shouldnt i be able to do something similar with the hd2600

 

I'm not sure if I understand the question. Do you have an ATi video card currently in your rig and are looking to upgrade to a 2600xt? If so and they are current drivers just swap cards.

Device Manager will find the plug and play device. ATi along with nvidia switched to unified drivers i.e. same drivers for different cards.

 

oic..yea im trying to change drivers...i wanted to see if u can change the device id to hd2600xt...then install the xt display drivers...but i guess if they are the same drivers it will make no diff...what about firegl drivers would i get a performance increase...and do u know of anyway to improve my drivers...can i use a diff cards drivers, or are they all the same..

 

I have heard that Vista sometimes gives a lot better gaming performance for DirectX 9c than the same game played in XP. I personally use Vista because my computer is powerful enough to use it, I get no "errors" or BSODs, and XP is 7 years old.

-J.B.

 

im actually just starting to realize this... in newer games like Supreme Commander and even crysis a bit. vista SP1* is betta than xp. I will give in to say XP is betta than the original, but the SP1 rele made a difference for me anyway. Plus, make sure u do all the system tweaks you did for XP... cutting services, etc...

 

The only games I've played on XP and Vista are CoH and Mass Effect and I can't notice a difference in performance.

 

My gaming rig is more than plenty to run Vista. My games demand lots of power and with the low resources of XP I get much better performance. I also don't have to deal with a paranoid OS when i'm copy and pasting hundreds of files (user created mods) and Vista asking for verification with to and from request. Little did I find out Vista never copied what it was supposed to.

I've only had 2 BSOD's with XP in 7 yers and both memory problems. OTOH i've had more BSOD's with Vista on other machines that were not memory related.

 

The first part of that is my conclusion as well. The last time I tested, XP gave me 10% higher 3dMark06 than in Vista Home Premium (4400 vs 4000 with an Asus G1S, 8600M GT DDR3 graphics card). although that was before SP1, and there might have been a graphics driver update since then too. Regardless, the games I play (C&C3, FEAR, the Half-Life 2's, Civilization IV) are still noticeably smoother and with higher FPS at the same settings in XP. I put that down mostly to the lower overhead of XP. If however one had 4GB RAM or Vista 64 bit things may or may not be different.

Although by now Vista doesn't cause me problems gaming, if I hadn't already got everything else I wanted to do set up for Vista, I would only be using the XP install. Vista isn't bad, it just doesn't give me anything useful that XP doesn't already - relative to gaming or anything else I use my computer for.

Additionally, my Vista install is as supplied, with a few things removed. There's just so many processes I don't know whether to get rid of or not that I'm bound to have missed some that affect performance without being of any use whatsoever.

 

Is it possible their extra 3DMark points come from their processor? 3DMark06 doesn't just test the GPU, there is a CPU test as well, and those points are added to the overall score.

Personally, on my MBP I get just about 3900 3DMarks(06) running at 1440x900. I think newer drivers might help the score up, but I'd rather just wait till Apple releases the updated drivers. My games run without a hitch, so there is no real reason for me to mess with the drivers.

 

no..lol its possible they have drivers with lower IQ and are using xp with a lower resolution...there 3dmark scores are outta this world and make no sence ...dude the 8800mgts scores 7000 u think a ocd 8600m gt will score 6400? give me a break it's garbage and im just trying to figure out why they are lying about it...

its like when i had integrated graphics i would tell people i get 60 fps in ccs with 4xaa max settings 16xaf at 1280x800...what i didnt say was that the aa wasnt working due to the drivers, and the af didnt make a performance diff...not sure why..and the game was run with caseys config..stock i got 24 fps max...

my point stock 25...in reality im saying 60
them(8600m gt nutcases) 3800 in reality saying 6400...lol dude drivers dont double performance unless u had some alien with better technology design them for u, even then aliens included id need to see photos..yes even if the aliens overclocked your gpu to 900 core and used new cooling technology that humans dont have..then id believe that these people were anything more than bold faced liars...

 

I've installed windowsXP on my M1530. I got a higher 3dmark, but games weren't as smooth as in Vista. No matter what I tweaked.

So I say => Vista all the way.

 

ok cool..so then i change nothing

 

there is no different between the two OSes if you are using Single card configs.. maybe just in 3dmark06 there is a slight difference, but if you are using SLI then XP is still notably better.

 

My suggestion is to try your games in Vista first since that's the OS you have. Then try them with XP and compare the results. I did just that and found out XP was the best choice for me.